Barrett's Play

[JC]

What is the big deal that Barrett is one of the best offensive catchers in the game?

 

Barrett's numbers wouldn't mean so much on this team had we had a couple of high OPS guys in the outfield.

 

But the fact is they don't have high OPS guys in the OF and they aren't likely to have them next year. Downgrading the offense from catcher would only increase the number of upgrades they'd need elsewhere, and considering how difficult it will be just to fill the current needs, it doesn't make sense to make more holes.

 

Slippery Pete: What is dis?

Costanza: Thats the outlet.

Slippery Pete: What is that do?

Costanza: Its where the electricity comes from!

Slippery Pete: Oh, you mean the "holes".

[brfahey]

 

Just to be clear: I didn't say Barrett's bad defense is the only reason the Cubs won't make postseason. Rather, I think he represents the type of player who looks godd statistically and whom fans like but is not often on a winning team. Subpar defense, not many baseball smarts. I just don't think he's a winning player.

 

The Cubs won more games with Barrett in 04 than they did in 03 when they didn't make the playoffs.

 

Winning player is a contrived notion that can only be defined after the fact. Would Derek Jeter be a winning player if he was drafted by Tampa? That kind of talk just clouds the facts. Luis Sojo has multiple World Series, and because of that many NYers consider him a "real winner". But the fact is both Jeter and Sojo won because they were on great teams.

 

Guys like Barrett take up roster spots on every single world series winning team. Mark Bellhorn was considered by many to be a stupid ballplayer with no instincts or real position. He ended up playing a crucial role on the Red Sox. Juan Encarnacion is no baseball genius, and he's got a terrible approach at the plate, yet Florida won with him.

 

No, Barrett isn't ideal. But he's no worse for this team than 15 other guys. The Cubs can win with MB catching 130 games a year. I'd be fine with upgrading defensively at catcher and taking a hit offensively. However, the only way you do that is by substantially improving the offense elsewhere. They already need multiple offensive upgrades even with MB on the team. If they downgrade the offense from C that just adds another need to the list. I'd prefer to not make things more difficult than they already are.

 

They won more games but finished twenty games out of first and imploded in the wild card race, with Houston winning it after Barrett woke them up by placing a personal feud with Oswalt above the team. That game was the beginning of the beginning for Houston.

 

None of the other guys youmentioned is a catcher. I don't think the importance of that position can be overstated. With the exception of pitcher, the ctahcer is the most involved player on the field. Cathcing affects pitching. Can you state that the Cubs pitching has improved since Barrett took over?

 

And I happen to think Luis Sojo is a winning player. he got the game winning hit in 2000 World Series Game 5.

 

15 other guys on the Cubs don't catch. We have got to get stronger there defensively or we will continue to struggle.

[burnt out cubbie fan]

 

Just to be clear: I didn't say Barrett's bad defense is the only reason the Cubs won't make postseason. Rather, I think he represents the type of player who looks godd statistically and whom fans like but is not often on a winning team. Subpar defense, not many baseball smarts. I just don't think he's a winning player.

 

The Cubs won more games with Barrett in 04 than they did in 03 when they didn't make the playoffs.

 

Winning player is a contrived notion that can only be defined after the fact. Would Derek Jeter be a winning player if he was drafted by Tampa? That kind of talk just clouds the facts. Luis Sojo has multiple World Series, and because of that many NYers consider him a "real winner". But the fact is both Jeter and Sojo won because they were on great teams.

 

Guys like Barrett take up roster spots on every single world series winning team. Mark Bellhorn was considered by many to be a stupid ballplayer with no instincts or real position. He ended up playing a crucial role on the Red Sox. Juan Encarnacion is no baseball genius, and he's got a terrible approach at the plate, yet Florida won with him.

 

No, Barrett isn't ideal. But he's no worse for this team than 15 other guys. The Cubs can win with MB catching 130 games a year. I'd be fine with upgrading defensively at catcher and taking a hit offensively. However, the only way you do that is by substantially improving the offense elsewhere. They already need multiple offensive upgrades even with MB on the team. If they downgrade the offense from C that just adds another need to the list. I'd prefer to not make things more difficult than they already are.

 

They won more games but finished twenty games out of first and imploded in the wild card race, with Houston winning it after Barrett woke them up by placing a personal feud with Oswalt above the team. That game was the beginning of the beginning for Houston.

 

None of the other guys youmentioned is a catcher. I don't think the importance of that position can be overstated. With the exception of pitcher, the ctahcer is the most involved player on the field. Cathcing affects pitching. Can you state that the Cubs pitching has improved since Barrett took over?

 

And I happen to think Luis Sojo is a winning player. he got the game winning hit in 2000 World Series Game 5.

 

15 other guys on the Cubs don't catch. We have got to get stronger there defensively or we will continue to struggle.

So it's Barrett's fault that the Cardinals having been amazing the last two years? It's also Michael's fault that Wood and Prior have missed significant chunks of time each or the last two years and Clement missed parts of the last month and a half of the season last year? I do think that the pitching has gotten worse but that is not Michael's fault, it's Jim Hendry's.

[brfahey]

Why is it that the starters seem to prefer having Blanco catch them?

[SAMMYWHO]

I for one remember Maddux saying he likes Barrett as a catcher and thinks he'll be a great player. Source, MLB.com earlier this year, maybe spring training.

[Wheelimus]

Move Blanco and his family to wherever Barrett is living this winter. Have them work all winter on catching skills.

 

Problem solved.

[Guest]

None of the other guys youmentioned is a catcher. I don't think the importance of that position can be overstated. With the exception of pitcher, the ctahcer is the most involved player on the field. Cathcing affects pitching. Can you state that the Cubs pitching has improved since Barrett took over?

Most evidence suggests that a pitcher's performance is largely independent of who is behind the plate. Short-term differences do arise (such as with Barrett and Blanco in 2005) but they don't persist season to season. There are several reasons why the pitching staff hasn't lived up to its potential over the past two years, but our starting catcher really isn't one of them.

 

Defense is important, but it will always be overshadowed (and rightly so) by a player's offensive contributions. For one thing, fielders share the defensive burden with whoever is pitching... 30% or so of all plate appearances have nothing to do with anybody but the pitcher and batter. Also, I believe the distribution of talent is much narrower on the defensive spectrum than it is the offensive spectrum. In other words, the difference between the best and worst fielding catcher is far less than the difference between the best and worst hitting catcher. Take Mike Piazza as an example. He's probably the greatest hitting catcher of all time, but his defense is probably about as bad as it gets. He's still a very valuable player, however. The runs he costs you behind the plate compared to, say, Mike Matheny pale in comparison to the extra runs he'll generate at the plate.

[CuseCubFan69]

I wonder what the pitchers feel about D. Miller and if they would rather be throwing to him instead of Barrett. I like Barrett but he isn't a leader behind the plate IMO. He doesn't do the little things that would make him a better reciever and if the pitchers do not have confidence in him that alone could be worth looking at different options. You can not have pitchers thinking about the catcher and they HAVE to have confidence in him to pitch as efectively as they can.

 

What hurts the Cubs is that they can't hide any more bats. If they upgrade the OF and SS (Perez) they can hide a 250/310 hitting catcher that excels on D. Until they do that Barrett is a good option to help with those weaknesses.

[Careless]

I don't think the importance of that position can be overstated.

I do

The catching position is a quintillion times more important defensively than all of the other positions combined.

[CuseCubFan69]

Defense is important, but it will always be overshadowed (and rightly so) by a player's offensive contributions. For one thing, fielders share the defensive burden with whoever is pitching... 30% or so of all plate appearances have nothing to do with anybody but the pitcher and batter. Also, I believe the distribution of talent is much narrower on the defensive spectrum than it is the offensive spectrum. In other words, the difference between the best and worst fielding catcher is far less than the difference between the best and worst hitting catcher. Take Mike Piazza as an example. He's probably the greatest hitting catcher of all time, but his defense is probably about as bad as it gets. He's still a very valuable player, however. The runs he costs you behind the plate compared to, say, Mike Matheny pale in comparison to the extra runs he'll generate at the plate.

 

Have you ever pitched and worried if you threw a ball in the dirt it might get by your catcher? If you let a fastball go and worry that the catcher might not get to it in the air? Had a baserunner on and know that your catcher couldn't throw out Ramirez? Some pitchers can block this stuff out and some can not. This effects the pitch before the ball gets to the batter and changes the spot thus changing how the ball may be hit so before you can look at the defensive burden of the other 7 fielders this problem has to be addressed.

[Tim]

1908 and I were talking about this at the game on Monday. Our conclusion:

 

Trade Barrett, sign Johjima. :D

[CuseCubFan69]

1908 and I were talking about this at the game on Monday. Our conclusion:

 

Trade Barrett, sign Johjima. :D

 

What kind of haul could Barrett bring in? Also, since Johjima doesn't know the league, how confident would the Cub pitchers be with him calling the pitches?

[Tim]

1908 and I were talking about this at the game on Monday. Our conclusion:

 

Trade Barrett, sign Johjima. :D

 

What kind of haul could Barrett bring in? Also, since Johjima doesn't know the league, how confident would the Cub pitchers be with him calling the pitches?

I'm not sure what Barrett could bring in return. Maybe Quentin? AZ's young catching duo certainly didn't perform as they had hoped.

 

As for pitch calling and knowing the league...that is why there are pitching coaches and pre-game preparation sessions.

[Havoc 23]

I wonder what the pitchers feel about D. Miller and if they would rather be throwing to him instead of Barrett.

 

I was discussing this with my uncle the other day. He is a Brewers fan, and contributes some of the Brewers pitching success with having Miller behind the plate. I agree with him in part simply because I think that Miller knows how to call a good game. We are talking about Barrett's defense being poor when in fact I think it is his game calling he needs work on.

[Careless]

1908 and I were talking about this at the game on Monday. Our conclusion:

 

Trade Barrett, sign Johjima. :D

Speaking of which, is it time to resurrect the japanese player thread? or is there an active one someplace I've missed

[gus_dog]

We are talking about Barrett's defense being poor when in fact I think it is his game calling he needs work on.

 

IMO, Barrett is below average at both of these aspects.

[Guest]

Have you ever pitched and worried if you threw a ball in the dirt it might get by your catcher? If you let a fastball go and worry that the catcher might not get to it in the air? Had a baserunner on and know that your catcher couldn't throw out Ramirez? Some pitchers can block this stuff out and some can not. This effects the pitch before the ball gets to the batter and changes the spot thus changing how the ball may be hit so before you can look at the defensive burden of the other 7 fielders this problem has to be addressed.

The last time I threw a pitch in a competitive game I was a 12-year old version of Stu Miller. I wasn't exactly concerned with my catcher's ability to catch the ball, just my ability to get it to him. ;)

 

Statistically, a pitcher throwing to catcher A doesn't perform much differently than the same pitcher throwing to catcher B. While some of the issues you mentioned may (and probably do) run through a hurler's head, it would seem they are always secondary to the pitcher's own abilities. I'd say a catcher's greatest defensive contribution lies in his ability to block pitches and throw out would-be base stealers.

[CuseCubFan69]

Have you ever pitched and worried if you threw a ball in the dirt it might get by your catcher? If you let a fastball go and worry that the catcher might not get to it in the air? Had a baserunner on and know that your catcher couldn't throw out Ramirez? Some pitchers can block this stuff out and some can not. This effects the pitch before the ball gets to the batter and changes the spot thus changing how the ball may be hit so before you can look at the defensive burden of the other 7 fielders this problem has to be addressed.

The last time I threw a pitch in a competitive game I was a 12-year old version of Stu Miller. I wasn't exactly concerned with my catcher's ability to catch the ball, just my ability to get it to him. ;)

 

Statistically, a pitcher throwing to catcher A doesn't perform much differently than the same pitcher throwing to catcher B. While some of the issues you mentioned may (and probably do) run through a hurler's head, it would seem they are always secondary to the pitcher's own abilities. I'd say a catcher's greatest defensive contribution lies in his ability to block pitches and throw out would-be base stealers.

 

Don't be shy about those 5 no hitters in a row BK...it was quite an accomplishment!

 

I think it also depends on how a catcher can take over a game and control the pitcher when he needs someone to take charge. Obviously some pitchers don't need that but some do and a good reciever knows what buttons to push and can adapt to the different personalities.

[goonys evil twin]

I think this whole discussions goes back to the theory that last year's failures were all about some sort of chemical imbalance, and not due to a lack of a performance. Blaming mediocre pitching on a catcher that fails to massage the pitcher through an outing is just like blaming a loss on players not getting along.

 

The shortcomings of the 2004 team and the utter embarrasment of the 2005 team are all about bad personel decisions, poor management decisions and lack of performance. They are not due to a lack of chemistry, a lack of trying, a lack of intestinal fortitude, a lack of team spirit, a lack of intangibles or any other subjective concept. They put a team on the field that was statistically unlikely to be very productive, they employed strategies that are proven to statistically decrease your team's chances to win, and they ultimately paid the price when those weaknesses were exploited by superior opponents.

 

The Cubs employ a terrible inefficient roster, and because of that they lose more than they should given their payroll.

 

It's not about complicated interpersonal relationships, it's about production and the Cubs' organizations blatant disregard for what constitutes production.

[abuck1220]

It's not about complicated interpersonal relationships, it's about production and the Cubs' organizations blatant disregard for what constitutes production.

 

...and announcers not giving the players nicknames.

[JC]

It's not about complicated interpersonal relationships, it's about production and the Cubs' organizations blatant disregard for what constitutes production.

 

...and announcers not giving the players nicknames.

 

Nice addition, Cornstalk.

[abuck1220]

It's not about complicated interpersonal relationships, it's about production and the Cubs' organizations blatant disregard for what constitutes production.

 

...and announcers not giving the players nicknames.

 

Nice addition, Cornstalk.

 

just pulling my weight around here.

 

also, anyone notice how farnsworth's poor attitude is just killing the braves right now? whew, am i glad the cubs ditched him.

[CuseCubFan69]

I think this whole discussions goes back to the theory that last year's failures were all about some sort of chemical imbalance, and not due to a lack of a performance. Blaming mediocre pitching on a catcher that fails to massage the pitcher through an outing is just like blaming a loss on players not getting along.

 

The shortcomings of the 2004 team and the utter embarrasment of the 2005 team are all about bad personel decisions, poor management decisions and lack of performance. They are not due to a lack of chemistry, a lack of trying, a lack of intestinal fortitude, a lack of team spirit, a lack of intangibles or any other subjective concept. They put a team on the field that was statistically unlikely to be very productive, they employed strategies that are proven to statistically decrease your team's chances to win, and they ultimately paid the price when those weaknesses were exploited by superior opponents.

 

The Cubs employ a terrible inefficient roster, and because of that they lose more than they should given their payroll.

 

It's not about complicated interpersonal relationships, it's about production and the Cubs' organizations blatant disregard for what constitutes production.

 

Interesting how it's all or nothing. I don't deny that talent wins games because it does. I also think that the balance of offense/defense is what has to be decided like players Nomar/Walker/Barrett and see what the cost analysis is going to be. I do not deny that the Cubs have not went after the wrong players and manager but I do not believe for a moment that you can short change what a catcher has to do for a team to help the staff improve. This isn't roto league it's real people playing a very difficult game and having a catcher that can do a range of things to help can only make a staff better. I am not advocating to go after some 200 hitting catcher because of his defensive/communication skills but I am saying there is a point where I would look at when the defense or offense as a liability. Look at Piazza, he has the same offensive numbers as Barrett but in 98 games. Is it worth having him in there? Do the pitchers like thowing to him even though he has a superior bat to Castro? Who do they want behind the plate?

 

I don't care about chemistry or blaming Barrett or any one player for this season. I am talking about a postion that I think demands a leader or at worst a player that can help the staff keep their minds on pitching. I am not "blaming" medicore pitching on a catcher. I am saying that a good receiver helps a pitcher be the pitcher he really is. He doesn't have get along with the pitcher but he has to know how to help him when he needs it and to identify the adjustments needed. Chemistry or vodoo have nothing to do with it.

[CuseCubFan69]

It's not about complicated interpersonal relationships, it's about production and the Cubs' organizations blatant disregard for what constitutes production.

 

...and announcers not giving the players nicknames.

 

Nice addition, Cornstalk.

 

just pulling my weight around here.

 

also, anyone notice how farnsworth's poor attitude is just killing the braves right now? whew, am i glad the cubs ditched him.

 

That's my point. Same player...why is he successful now? This isn't about chemistry but adjustments by the manager/coaches and catcher.

[abuck1220]

It's not about complicated interpersonal relationships, it's about production and the Cubs' organizations blatant disregard for what constitutes production.

 

...and announcers not giving the players nicknames.

 

Nice addition, Cornstalk.

 

just pulling my weight around here.

 

also, anyone notice how farnsworth's poor attitude is just killing the braves right now? whew, am i glad the cubs ditched him.

 

That's my point. Same player...why is he successful now? This isn't about chemistry but adjustments by the manager/coaches and catcher.

 

he was successful when he was with the cubs...at times. he got abused by baker last season and wore down. the tools were always there, and the cubs were stupid to give up on him.